Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree19Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:05 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
You should have actually read the true source and not just the article, you look stupid here. Here is how it ends....

However, when considering cases of guilt and not capital sentences, Catholic judges can sit on such cases if their “objective is to deal justly with the defendant.” They would be finding if someone is guilty of murder, not whether the person should receive a death sentence. In appeals-court cases, however, “if one cannot in conscience affirm a death sentence the proper response is to recuse oneself,” they wrote.

In conclusion, they wrote, “Judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.”


Your hatred and biases make you look quite bad for someone who purports to be a "tolerant" Progressive.
I would imagine there are quite a few places, not just death penalty and abortion, where a devout catholic, or any other deeply religious person, would almost constantly be in conflict between their religion and the law.

My question is, what use are they ?? If they'll be constantly recusing themselves from cases that are in conflict with their beliefs why even have them on the bench ?? What are the court rules when a judge does recuse ?? Do they simply make a ruling with that chair empty or do they bring in a judge from another district ?? Does recusing themselves alter the political leanings of that court ?? If the other judges in the court have consistently upheld the death penalty in a majority of their cases, isn't recusing yourself simply casting a vote FOR the penalty in those cases ?? Doesn't recusing yourself KNOWING how the court is likely to vote not that same as casting a vote yourself ??

If you're that devout, surely there are other inherent biases that will come into play ?? What if you have two identical cases, except in one case the victim is a married mother of three that went to church, at least occasionally, and in the other case the victim is a prostitute ?? How can we be sure the perpetrator in both cases will be given equal justice ??

This is one of those cases, where if doing your job is going to put you in direct conflict with your religion, then maybe you need to find another line of work. IE: A pharmacist that refuses to fill a prescription for the morning after pill for a rape victim.
Thanks from RNG
BubbaJones is online now  
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:10 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
I would imagine there are quite a few places, not just death penalty and abortion, where a devout catholic, or any other deeply religious person, would almost constantly be in conflict between their religion and the law.

My question is, what use are they ?? If they'll be constantly recusing themselves from cases that are in conflict with their beliefs why even have them on the bench ?? What are the court rules when a judge does recuse ?? Do they simply make a ruling with that chair empty or do they bring in a judge from another district ?? Does recusing themselves alter the political leanings of that court ?? If the other judges in the court have consistently upheld the death penalty in a majority of their cases, isn't recusing yourself simply casting a vote FOR the penalty in those cases ?? Doesn't recusing yourself KNOWING how the court is likely to vote not that same as casting a vote yourself ??

If you're that devout, surely there are other inherent biases that will come into play ?? What if you have two identical cases, except in one case the victim is a married mother of three that went to church, at least occasionally, and in the other case the victim is a prostitute ?? How can we be sure the perpetrator in both cases will be given equal justice ??

This is one of those cases, where if doing your job is going to put you in direct conflict with your religion, then maybe you need to find another line of work. IE: A pharmacist that refuses to fill a prescription for the morning after pill for a rape victim.
Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, forbids a religious test as a requirement for holding a governmental position and holds the United States under the Constitution responsible for debts incurred by the United States under the Articles of Confederation.

That damn Constitution.
Thanks from webguy4 and Hashtag
Quigley is online now  
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:19 PM   #23
Banned
 
Hashtag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upside Down
Posts: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, forbids a religious test as a requirement for holding a governmental position and holds the United States under the Constitution responsible for debts incurred by the United States under the Articles of Confederation.

That damn Constitution.

As I posted previously, they are imposing a religious test.

And they are smearing her, but that is the usual playbook for regressives, Smears R'Us.
Hashtag is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:20 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, forbids a religious test as a requirement for holding a governmental position and holds the United States under the Constitution responsible for debts incurred by the United States under the Articles of Confederation.

That damn Constitution.
But in this case she herself has made her opinions and beliefs well known. If she can't do the job, regardless of why, she can't do the job. She has said she would have to recuse herself from certain cases. I think my questions are highly valid.

What if she was a black atheist lesbian with a long history of writing about how terrible straight white men were. Would YOU not expect her to recuse from any case involving straight white males ?? Would YOU not be asking the same questions about unintended bias ??

It's not the senate "applying" a religious test. It's about whether she can even do the job.
BubbaJones is online now  
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:22 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
But in this case she herself has made her opinions and beliefs well known. If she can't do the job, regardless of why, she can't do the job. She has said she would have to recuse herself from certain cases. I think my questions are highly valid.

What if she was a black atheist lesbian with a long history of writing about how terrible straight white men were. Would YOU not expect her to recuse from any case involving straight white males ?? Would YOU not be asking the same questions about unintended bias ??

It's not the senate "applying" a religious test. It's about whether she can even do the job.
I'm not like your side, I take the Constitution seriously, I don't see it as a situational document. Using your logic neither Kagan or Sotomayor are "qualified".
Quigley is online now  
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:25 PM   #26
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 26,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, forbids a religious test as a requirement for holding a governmental position and holds the United States under the Constitution responsible for debts incurred by the United States under the Articles of Confederation.

That damn Constitution.
It is not a religious test if the religion prevents accepting that the constitution is the supreme factor in decisions.
RNG is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:26 PM   #27
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 26,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
I'm not like your side, I take the Constitution seriously, I don't see it as a situational document. Using your logic neither Kagan or Sotomayor are "qualified".
Not if they don't consider their belief in myths to override the constitution.
RNG is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:44 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
I'm not like your side, I take the Constitution seriously, I don't see it as a situational document. Using your logic neither Kagan or Sotomayor are "qualified".

Have either of them stated they would not be able to uphold the constitution based on some belief ?? Have they stated they could not or would not uphold the constitution or would have to recuse themselves because the law would be in direct conflict with some personal belief ?

OH and BTW, I keep a copy of the constitution laying right here on my desk. I am NOT a "living" document or as you put it "situational" document kind of person.

Your assumption is invalid.
BubbaJones is online now  
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:47 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
It is not a religious test if the religion prevents accepting that the constitution is the supreme factor in decisions.
Read. Your opinion means nothing.
Quigley is online now  
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:48 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Not if they don't consider their belief in myths to override the constitution.
Read. That's not what she said. Your opinion means nothing.
Thanks from Hashtag
Quigley is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
appellate, constitution, nominee, religion, supersedes, trump



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sen. Mike Lee: Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will be confirmed johnwk Current Events 20 February 1st, 2017 06:54 AM
trump will not be nominee hot dragon Politicians 10 August 10th, 2016 11:58 AM
GOP Concedes: Trump WILL BE The Nominee… “We’re Going After Hillary Clinton” Sabcat Political Talk 27 May 5th, 2016 07:13 AM
Trump warns of riots if he can't be Republican presidential nominee imaginethat Politicians 40 March 17th, 2016 07:33 PM
'Pathetic' — Trump, Bush Spar Over 9/11. Maybe Neither Will Be The Nominee Lyzza Politicians 0 October 17th, 2015 09:16 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.